The Shortcomings of Market-Based Approaches in Nairobi, Kenya

Following on from blog post 6, where I spoke of numerous inadequacies among urban services in Nairobi, Kenya, and a solution to the problem of a lack of sanitation facilities, namely that provided by SC Johnson with Community Cleaning Services (CCS), this post will unravel the underlying principles behind market-based approaches to development in order to assess their effectiveness. The aim is to find out whether market-based approaches are an adequate alternative to state-controlled systems of provision.

In order to refresh your memories, I will provide a quick recap of what CCS was and what it did: CCS, sponsored by SC Johnson, was an innovative market-based approach to deal with the limited availability of safe sanitation services in the slums of Nairobi. CCS employed around twenty young individuals to provide a cleaning service within their communities, operating on over one-hundred toilets. Thus, this project was dedicated to improving the state of sanitation in Nairobi’s slums, while also providing entrepreneurial prospects for the younger generation (Thieme and DeKoszmovszky, 2012).

CCS' youthful employees. Source: Washplus Resources

From what I can gauge from reading around this specific market-based approach to improve the situation of access to safe sanitation facilities in Nairobi, Kenya, is that it is one which had substantial potential, but was, perhaps unsurprisingly, plagued with similar problems to market-based development practices world over. As promoting development was not the sole objective for every involved stakeholder, and there was always concern in regard to profits, this business, which turned a basic human need into an opportunity, failed to deliver. Due to unforeseen circumstances, including issues in regard to payment habits and certain cultural dynamics about men entering the home of a woman without her husband being present, this particular scheme had to seize its operations in 2012, seven years after its inception (Thieme, 2015).

This corporate-led development scheme is likely to be viewed as a business failure for a number of reasons. First, its participatory nature perhaps caused there to be inefficient business management. For instance, an inadequate payment method arguably heightened concerns over money flows and profits. Second, its profit-dominated focus and privatisation of cleaning services diverted attention away from the objective of improving sanitation facilities. However, depending upon someone’s background, their opinion on CCS’ operation can differ. A practitioner focusing on sustainability may view the development scheme as a socially responsible agenda, in which a business approach was applied in order to promote entrepreneurial opportunities and the improvement of sanitation facilities (Cross and Street, 2009). And others might regard CCS as ‘business innovation’ (Thieme, 2015), one which combines job creation with human welfare, and sets a precedent for other similar initiatives. The commodification of this basic service can, therefore, be applauded.

However, from a geographer’s perspective, a departure from an approach which considers safe water and sanitation facilities as economic goods will, arguably, provide a more effective, development-focused strategy (Bakker, 2007). The practice of participatory development, inaugurated by, for example, socially responsible development organisations, is arguably a more appropriate approach to improving inadequate sanitation services in Nairobi, and the rest of the developing world. Indeed, this is because the commodification and marketisation of basic goods and services must have an adequate cost-recovery or profit-making infrastructure – a formality which draws attention away from the primary development objectives – so that the initiatives are economically maintainable (WSP 2010).

Initiatives which encourage engagement from community actors, which are not founded nor sponsored by commercial companies, are both more balanced and morally attractive. The initiatives will be adapted to avoid similarities with failed top-down approaches, and will be based around ideologies of equality and empowerment (Hickey and Mohan, 2004).

Nevertheless, participatory approaches to development are not without their own problems and inadequacies. This is an issue which requires some careful consideration and will therefore be the primary focus of my next blog post. Therefore, in the next blog in this series, I will be focusing on the effectiveness of participatory approaches to development, with a specific consideration towards the provision of safe water and sanitation facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa.